DJI owns Hasselblad. It will be interesting to see if Hasselblad get hit by this as well. Not that I want to see it, just curious if there may be collateral damage.
DJI ban passes the House and moves on to the Senate
291–300 of 742 posts
Re: DJI ban passes the House and moves on to the Senate
#292DJI is, by far, the best drone equipment brand for photography, industrial usage, etc. It's disheartening to witness the US embracing protectionism for high-tech. If the United States does this, it might as well join the European Union's decadence in killing tech startups by stifling the competitiveness of their market...
Repeat of Harley Davidson situation?
Re: DJI ban passes the House and moves on to the Senate
#293Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's definitely economic protectionism but it's mostly protectionism for national security reasons. I assume the US is going to start manufacturing drones for war in large numbers in the near term and they need to be made at home (or at least by allies).
I don't understand your argument: what has DJI - a manufacturer of personal use drones - with the US military wanting to build weaponized drones in the US?
The same reason the US props up any other militarily relevant tech, whether or not always used for that purpose. Protectionism of local industry.
See: chipmakers, telecom tech, aerospace tech, etc.
Re: DJI ban passes the House and moves on to the Senate
#294Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've heard offhand here that the ease of starting a business in general is easier in the US and that funding for tech startups is more available in the US due to policy. Totally hearsay from me.
Regulation isn't going to stop innovation that much, or the tech industry wouldn't be in california. The primary difference is that the US is one homogenous, huge market. If I build something in California, to California's laws, and it becomes a success, I can immediately sell it across the entire rest of the US, and I can expand across the US, using the same employment contracts as in california, same lawyers as in…
California's tech industry works because there is a long-established tradition of lawbreaking in California. We pass all these regulations, and then ignore them. Sometimes the more enlightened legislators put in explicit carve-outs for businesses of less than 50 employees or a $B in revenue, so that startups don't have to actually break the law, they can just ignore it. But they're going to ignore it anyway, so the carve outs really serve the law's benefit rather than the startup.
In practice, the way California tech startups work is
1) Break *all* the laws.
2) Get customers
3) Raise capital
4) Profit!
5) Hire lawyers to bring the company into compliance with the laws.
6) Hire lobbyists to bring the laws into compliance with the company.
7) Try to prevent your employees from doing the same thing you did.
Re: DJI ban passes the House and moves on to the Senate
#295Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's the counter examples to highlight Europe's tech successes? Skype? Nokia? Soundcloud? Spotify?
Adyen Revolut GoCardless Shift Vinted …
>Adyen
>Revolut
Those have 1% of the revenue compared to the top American tech companies (individual, not combined). The rest are private and I suspect have even less revenue. If those are the best examples of "tech successes" you can think of, you're proving the parent commenter's point.
Re: DJI ban passes the House and moves on to the Senate
#296I tried to find a non-Chinese router last week. They don't exist.
Draytek.
Re: DJI ban passes the House and moves on to the Senate
#297Earlier quoted context omitted.
They could put anybody who assembles those parts into a drone into prison. Of course it would still be technically feasible to make one anyway, just as it's technically feasible to make an autosear, or for that matter a whole gun. Doesn't mean it can't be banned.
If they weren't able to stop people from growing and distributing marijuana then I doubt they'll be able to stop this.
Doesn't stop them from making marijuana illegal and putting people in prison, does it?
That said, I think enforcement would be more effective for drones. Marijuana can be effectively enjoyed in the privacy of your own home, but that's only true for a limited extent of drones. They're noisy and usually flown out in the open where annoyed neighbors can narc on you. Furthermore, just my subjective guess, I think people will be more willing to break the rules to enjoy marijuana than to enjoy drones. Marijuana is very effective at making a shit life tolerable, so people are more willing to break the law for it (and alcohol, etc).
Re: DJI ban passes the House and moves on to the Senate
#298DJI is, by far, the best drone equipment brand for photography, industrial usage, etc. It's disheartening to witness the US embracing protectionism for high-tech. If the United States does this, it might as well join the European Union's decadence in killing tech startups by stifling the competitiveness of their market...
I disagree with the EU on a lot of things, but when it comes to tech and privacy in particular, they're the gold standard in putting individual people first. As someone deeply involved in my company's compliance with GDPR, it can't be overstated how important it is.
Re: DJI ban passes the House and moves on to the Senate
#299DJI is, by far, the best drone equipment brand for photography, industrial usage, etc. It's disheartening to witness the US embracing protectionism for high-tech. If the United States does this, it might as well join the European Union's decadence in killing tech startups by stifling the competitiveness of their market...
> It's disheartening to witness the US embracing protectionism for high-tech Is it? I suspect China has zero regrets in embracing protectionism for social media. The American drone consumer will get squeezed for a few years, until the US develops decent home-grown suppliers in a strategic industry. Hard to think of a better limited use of protectionism tbh.
Exactly! The Chinese leadership is smarter than America’s leadership: just look at what they do. They embrace protectionism when it makes sense.
Re: DJI ban passes the House and moves on to the Senate
#300Earlier quoted context omitted.
We make so much in China, I don’t get what the deal is, here. Just that a US billionaire isn’t making the money?
Once DJI gets banned, a new consumer company will come around and will happily import all the parts from China then slap on a substantial markup. I'm placing bets that DJI will somehow whitelabel the drones. It's funny the lengths the US public and political machine will go to avoid blaming the business sector that outsourced all of everything to China over the last few decades. Chinese manufacturing got the tools an…
Didn't we discover this recently? Like some domestic drone company was supplying drones to the law enforcement but most of the parts and software came from DJI.
Yep: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/24/business/china-drones-anz...